The problems with StringBuilders...

Tom Tromey tromey@redhat.com
Thu Oct 13 02:02:00 GMT 2005


>>>>> "David" == David Daney <ddaney@avtrex.com> writes:

David> There are a class of applications where throwing binary compatability
David> away to achieve better optimization makes a lot of sense (think
David> embedded systems).  The reality is that current GCJ development is
David> biased more and more towards the binay-compatibility system in hopes
David> of making it easier to maintain server and workstation applications.

Yeah, it is true, in that this is the focus of those of us at Red Hat.
For the time being I think we're ("we" == "the part of Red Hat working
actively on gcj") basically interested in making existing java
applications in the desktop/server space run well with the smallest
number of application-specific hacks.  Hence BC, etc.

I still want gcj to be useful for embedded developers though.  I don't
think we're doing anything really damaging to that set of users -- but
let me know if I'm mistaken.

There have been a lot of changes to the build that are pretty gross,
and some of them I'm sure affect embedded folks -- compiling various
packages BC for instance.  And, there will probably be more in that
vein, e.g. whenever I finish testing the locale data merge patch.
But, my impression is that embedded users tend to do their own custom
libgcj builds anyway.

Tom



More information about the Java mailing list